I reported in another thread, forgetting that we had this one! Got my State Pension invitation recently and have used my "unique invitation code" to claim what I have already paid in when I turn 65 at the end of November. They asked if I wanted to defer, I said no.

Sally still has another two years to go before receiving a bean, four years already robbed to the tune of about £30,000.

Oh, I think they will Stanley they have stirred a hornets nest. These are the the women who recognise the importance of the struggle to get the franchise in the first place. There is no way that they will stay at home come the reckoning.

A contract is a contract, broken by the government with no notice. My wife found out she was not going to get her pension 5 months before she turned 60. No time to plan for losing the £45,000 or thereabouts that was effectively promised to her when she started work at 15.

I have no problem, and neither do those women affected by the robbery with a phased introduction of parity but that has not been the case for thousands of women.

I'm aware of women being told they were paid less than men as they got to retire 5 years earlier, I'm struggling to find the equality. Perhaps, if the salary difference had been 'back paid' the pension deferment may have been slightly more acceptable.

Rules change. This is how it works. Ian's wife didn't sign a "contract" and there was no "contract" to pay her at 60. At the time she started working, the government were paying pensions to females at the age of 60 and the basic state pension (for men) was £13.30 per week in 1975. This amount has also changed considerably. The number of "qualifying" payment years has been reduced considerably also. I can understand that she is upset, as would most people be that are affected by the age change rules, but it is swings and roundabouts, like it or lump it.

I'm glad you aren't in charge of public finances China. The contract being referred to is the concept of the 'Social Contract' a blanket term applied to the understood relationship between the government and the populace. It's a well understood concept and widely used in responsible discussions about these relationships. In this case the underlying assumption was that if we put up with lower wages we would be given good working conditions with security and holiday and overtime benefits and be cared for by the state in sickness and old age. This is the contract that has been comprehensively broken.

Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

I sympathise with Ian about Sally's position but you can't cherry pick the bits you like. There have been many changes since State Pension began and overall it is much better now than when it was first started. For example, if State Pension Age had been increased at the same rate as Life Expectancy then people wouldn't become pensioners until well into their seventies. IMHO the government is doing a good job in honouring its social obligations in this matter. [Not often you hear me say that!]

As I said earlier, Sally and the thousands of other women affected would not be so angry if they had been given notice. If she and the others had been told at 50 or even 55 years of age it gives you time to make different life choices. Subsequent generations of women have this knowledge and can plan accordingly. The changes could have easily been phased in rather than dumped on one section of women who are slated to loose all. It's screwed our finances up as we made certain choices when Sally was ill and later when we lost our son based on the fact that we would have an income stream that should have started 4 years ago.

One day after I turn 65 and two letters from the DWP. One to inform me of my part payment of pension which will be around the 7th of next month and another to tell me I will be receiving a £10.00 Christmas bonus.

Pension age in Australia is making it's way up to 67 for everyone. It's a sliding scale and currently minimum age is 65.5 years old. The advice here is to put more money into your own superannuation fund as soon as you start work, and ultimately become a self funded retiree.

They are giving the same advice here now Liz. Problem is that so many are on such a low wage that they can't fund a pension and many jobs dont't carry superannuation. I never had a job in my life that had a pension fund and it was only in the last 15 years of my working life that I managed to pay the premium for a private pension for 8 years. Then they made me cash it in a year early to save the government paying me an income supplement. The only good thing was that I got a far better deal on my annuity than is available now, it attracts 3% interest each year. Compound interest mounts up and 18 years later I get a useful monthly supplement. If I live to be 120 I will be relatively wealthy! But not yet.......

Stanley Challenger Graham
Stanley's View
scg1936 at talktalk.net

"Beware of certitude" (Jimmy Reid)
The floggings will continue until morale improves!

All employers here are required to pay 9.5% of 'ordinary time earnings' into an employees superannuation fund.

Currently you can draw on your super fund tax free once you are over 60. It also means that once you turn 60 you can continue working, pay a large amount into your super, at a reduced tax rate, and then draw on your super to make up salary, tax free. (Or you can just retire and live off super tax free.)

I heard something on the radio last evening - I'm not up to speed , but it looks complicated, and will take a long time. A Welsh MP who is involved was interviewed and didn't seem too pleased - seems this judgment has been obtained by a splinter group, and the campaign is not totally coordinated. Apologies if that is not the case. I think they said if successful, the total cost will be enormous (£70 Billion from memory) - that will guarantee a robust response from Government.